Talk:Hunger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Hunger is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Hunger at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Hunger:
  • Find some more references
  • Discuss the role of hunger in migration and dispersal of animals (see the external link for reading, further references are needed on the subject).
Priority 3

How can there be no data anyhwere in wikipedia on this?[edit]

How much days can one survive without drinking?, how many without eating? without breathing? The answer is borderer but not treated.Undead Herle King (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds and feelings[edit]

Under the 'Hunger as a condition'-section, it is stated that gurgling sounds and bubbling feelings are what induce stomach shrinking. The reason for the gurgling and bubbling is never properly explained. Gamkiller 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Health Effects[edit]

Shouldn't this article contain some information on short term and/or long term health effects caused by (especially prolonged or frequent) hunger? Is it detrimental to your health to fast?

stomach[edit]

What is the 'pit' of the stomach?

Citation needed here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.24.133.188 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor entry[edit]

This is a dictionary entry, and a poor one at that. There's nothing but usage information for the word "hunger" here. AxelBoldt 21:14 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

Then please flesh it out with a physiological description. --Brion 21:17 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)
Generally I agree in condemning such criticisms, because rather than criticize, one can add, or ask questions and make polite requests for expansion. Tyciol 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Physiological description[edit]

That may be better suited to Starvation, unless the (many) specific chemical changes in the body that trigger hunger are documented here. -64.235.174.78

What exactly is your body signalling a need for when you're hungry? I know it's food, but what exactly does it need? What nutrient deficiency causes hunger? --SPUI (talk) 17:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see more of a physiological description too. I am surprised with the problems many have with overeating, food addictions, anorexia, etc. that this article has not been more fully explored. I am of the opinion that what the article currently consists of should be secondary content. Instead, the primary one should be the biological basis of hunger, and how it manifests as physical pain and mental need. Who agrees?Tyciol 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see it too, just like the example of how the neurotransmitter melatonin is what makes you sleepy, what chemical/thing makes you hungry? The snare (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I added a brief section on this, and linked to the main article ( Hunger (motivational state) ), which says hunger is mainly caused by the hormone ghrelin. Even the main article is fairly brief, it doesnt look like many experts on the biochemical aspects have been doing much work on these articles recently. If you'd like them to be further improved you could perhaps make a request over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine . FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Same as URL[edit]

I notice this page is exactly the same as [1]. What's company policy on this? 209.195.128.7218 May 2005

The BiologyDaily site may use this page under the GFDL, as long as Wikipedia is credited. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Generally, the policy is that if it's free, it's fine to have similarities or to base it on another page. We should supplement it with info from other sources to make it better, less biased, up to date, and all-encompassing though. Tyciol 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Stomach "shrinkage"[edit]

I have heard from a couple sources that your stomach does not actually "shrink" when you do not eat enough food. From what I understand, your body is actually producing less stomach acid to dissolve your food. The stomach acid triggers the "hungry" feeling in your stomach, and as the acid gets used up on food, you do not feel as hungry. So when you have less acid, you do not fill up as fast. If I could find some sources, I think this should be pointed out... because a lot of people seem to be spouting off this "myth" about our stomachs shrinking. -Unknown

I believe the rumour is true, but not in the degree most people think. The stomach very likely has a minimum size that it won't shrink past, which is why people get surgery to make it smaller (a full stomach does induce fullness). Any shrinkage beyond minimum would probably be due to catabolization of stomach tissue, which I can't see happening very easily due to the anti-evolutionary aspects of the trait. Stomachs due 'stretch' though, as far as I know, which is how power eating works, so if someone reduced their food intake or ate smaller meals, the stomach might reduce to it's minimum, rather than stretching out from larger meals? Tyciol 07:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I have run across from searching around. So it would make sense then that when people say their "stomach shrank", it was really they just let their appetites return to their minimum appetites. Anyways, thanks. -Unknown

Dieting[edit]

Many individuals feel hunger pangs while attempting to reduce food intake and lose weight. Hunger is the largest single reason why dieting fails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.81.51 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Politics of Hunger[edit]

The last sentence needs to be deleted as it reflects an anti-American bias. The United States should not be singled out.


I agree with the non-neutral POV tag above. The military expenditure of many nations exceeds 19 billion dollars U.S., yet they are not mentioned. Why it is the responsibility of the United States to feed the hungry or why the military spending of the United States' (or anywhere else) is relevant to the discussion escapes me.

I've removed the section. If anyone wants to readd it, feel free to do so, but don't single out any countries. _-M o P-_ 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Satiety[edit]

Mentioning satiety would be a great addition to the article. --Abdull 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Here is a thought on this subject. There are people in the World that are spending millions of Dollars on finding out if there is drinkable water in Mars. Why not spend those same Dollars on figuring out how to sustain water in the third world Countries so they DON'T HAVE to RELY on the USA or other far better off countries?

Chart[edit]

China is not on the list. Also, wouldnt percentages be better than total numbers? (IE: at this stage, small countries are excluded no matter what) -146.115.65.15 10:02, 29 June 2006

I updated the list with newer statistic from FAO: http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm Also, I definitely think that a percentile should be added to the chart, while keeping the total numbers too. However, I need to find a population chart for 2001-2003 to do that. Anyone? twsjon 12:45, 29 June 2006


Progress in World Hunger[edit]

Little progress has been made in tackling world hunger despite pledges by leaders to halve the number who are underfed, the UN's food agency says.
Some 820m people in the developing world were hungry in 2001-2003, only 3m fewer than 1990-1992, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6099460.stm
vkvora 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

false! check brazilian statistics. Marasmus (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

America has abolished hunger[edit]

"The USDA will now use the term "very low food security" to describe people who used to be considered "food insecure with hunger." Statistically speaking, hunger will no longer exist in America." [2]

I have no idea how or if this should be mentioned, but I thought you'd be interested to know that America has abolished hunger. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate. Abolition is what pansy-ass Europeans do. America exterminated hunger. With a vengeance - to a kill. User talk:p0rq 18:37, 06 May 2007 (GMT)

I hear a lot about hunger in america. Is it anti-americanism? Marasmus (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You hear it from the BBC and the Guardian. Right? Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.208.167 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Increased Activity While Sleeping?[edit]

How is a pattern of increased activity in humans demonstrated while they are sleeping? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.76.92 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Relieve Pressure on population[edit]

It is not clear how increased activity due to hunger would relieve pressure on native population. Needs more elaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinking-ape (talkcontribs) 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't figure out what hamster wheels had to do with any population. This sentence is confusing as [vulgarity] 136.176.100.79 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the experiment involving the hamsters indicated that hunger increases activity and that the increased activity usually results in a more widespread search for food. If the population is covering an expanded territory, then the need for food is less pressing. 149.159.101.89 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hunger is a feeling experienced when the glycogen level of the liver falls below a threshold,[edit]

I do not think that's necessary correct. A lot of things are affecting our feeling of hunger. Stomach contraction, blood sugar (glucose in the blood), perceptions of food and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.134.121.18 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it actually exist? How much is psychology driven?[edit]

Considering putting a pet an abundance of food it'll keep eating and eating till it is very fat, or try the same with a child and sweets or try the same with an adult that doesn't think that much about dietary habits and fast foods, it makes you easily think there might be a fine line between "hunger" and "instinctive draw to food whenever, for whatever, till it's not possible enough to eat". I for one would like to see sources and this article discussing these things. --Leladax (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mortality statistics[edit]

I see a bit of WP:OR in this section in that the original sources give the mortality per year. I'm unsure of the value of deriving the mortality per second, hour, day, etc. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, even for a good cause. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Response[edit]

It is not WP:OR. Please read carefully before judging : the original sources do give variations on the mortality statistics as one can read in the sources I provide in the " References" and as one can also read in the many links to actual source material that I give in the " References"

For example, in the “References"

[17] ^ Jacques Diouf. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2004: Monitoring Progress Towards the World Food Summit and Millennium Development Goals”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2004, p. 4. “one child dies every five seconds as a result of hunger and malnutrition”.

Jacques Diouf, FAO Director-General, wrote this, not me.

As to the value of variations on the mortality statistics, it is necessary because these variations are found in many of the reliable sources on the matter (Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, World Food Programme, Unicef, etc) (included in the sources used by me in the "References"). It is therefore a standard way of communicating the statistics on this matter given by the organizations responsible for establishing authoritative statistics on the subject.

it is necessary also because these variations are used regularly in reliable news outlets and by other seemingly authoritative organizations (various hunger organizations) often without precise references. If one wants to check on one of these variations found somewhere, at least now Wikipedia gives solid sources to support or criticize what one has found. Armando Navarro (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article going astray, proposal to split[edit]

This article is becoming increasingly problematic. A few months ago it was, as the "disambig" line says, about hunger as a motivational state. It has, however, steadily been accumulating material about hunger in the sense of malnutrition. Because both meanings seem about equally important, how about if we resolve this by turning hunger into a disambig page, with more specific articles such as hunger (motivation) and hunger (malnutrition), and split out the material accordingly? Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should split it too. But when most people think and then also search hunger they will be thinking malnutrition. So, how about we make hunger (malnutrition) the default page and merge that with the starvation article? Nicehumor (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I third the splitting idea. — Eric Herboso 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have split the article. Hunger now deals with malnutrition; Hunger (motivational state) with the biology. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping I got it right. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The hunger is the most common term to express the associated need and as such should be given the naming priority. WP:NAME expects naturalness and precision and the brackets are moot here, I think. The relevant search should yield physiological phenomenon to learn. If people want statistics and data, they can go to famine or malnutrition, caused by hunger. Twilightchill t 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, what I found, when the article was set up that way, was that every so often a very committed editor would show up, add some of that statistical data, and then when the material was removed get very upset about the racist western editors who don't care about world starvation, and generally cause a lot of fuss. If you want to take on the responsibility of dealing with that, I personally am willing to let you, but you'll find it very frustrating. The current structure, on the other hand, practically maintains itself. Looie496 (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
In the World Food Day I hope to fix that :) The related hatnotes will be. Twilightchill t 11:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

" Defining what is being assessed - hunger

The first question is to decide on and to define in quantifiable terms what is to be assessed - “hungry people”. This leads to the issue of whether it can be measured at all; a number of authors have commented that there is no “gold standard” against which to assess practical measures. Hunger is closely related to food security referring to “access by all people at all times to enough nutritionally adequate and safe food for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2000, p. 1), and some of the key measurements of this concept are very similar. The definition of hunger used for the Sixth World Food Survey took into account, for the first time, the critical issue of the reference period. The resulting definition was: “the number of people who do not get enough food energy, averaged over one year, to both maintain productive activity and maintain body weight” (FAO, 1990, 1996b). This definition of what is measured should be kept but may need to be explicitly reaffirmed.

The present Symposium has a particular importance if trends are now to be the focus, as it will be difficult to change definitions retrospectively in the future. The features of “hunger” that drive the concern for combating it include:

EFFECTS ON HEALTH: From physical malnutrition, as indicated by wasting (low weight-for-height), underweight (low weight-forage) or stunting (low height-for-age), to micronutrient deficiencies leading to lowered immunocompetence, anaemia, developmental and cognitive defects, etc. (See Figure 9 and related discussion);
SUFFERING: The pain and distress of hunger, the “uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food”, people’s concerns for their children;
BEHAVIOUR: Among the destitute, food-seeking dominates decisions and behaviour in a way that favours short-term survival to the exclusion of much else;
ECONOMIC: Reduced productivity, both from lowered energy availability for work and from lowered physical fitness resulting from malnutrition, as well as changes in risk-taking and coping strategies.

The measurements considered here are aimed at capturing some of these dimensions. If direct measurement were possible, it would be extremely useful to know the adequacy of dietary food energy intake for individuals, that is, “intake in relation to their requirements” for a defined level of function and reference period. Such a measure would probably predict well the four aspects of hunger indicated above (health, suffering, behaviour and economic). A central question concerns whether adequacy of dietary food energy intake and changes in this can, in fact, be measured. Three of the background papers have this as their central concern: the FAO method, household income and expenditure surveys and individual food intake surveys." Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4249e/y4249e0d.htm

For that reason I am against the split. Marasmus (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

I support the Wikipedia organism autonomously maintaining itself so having the two articles under the hunger heading sounds like a good idea. But I don’t like blessing the Hunger (malnutrition) article with the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I’d prefer Hunger (motivational state) to be named simply Hunger, if that didn’t cause it drift towards the malnutrition topic. But would there be any issues with letting Hunger (disambiguation) take the plain "Hunger" title, and listing both articles with equal blessing at the top? Vadmium (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

I'll give the same answer I have been giving for years: whatever article is entitled Hunger will draw edits from well-intentioned people who don't know much about Wikipedia but care a lot about malnutrition. If you're willing to take on the responsibility of fixing those edits and explaining to those editors why their edits were wrong, you are welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to make the change you suggest. The current structure, although logically less than ideal, is more or less self-maintaining. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you think having the disambiguation directly under "Hunger" is a bad idea I’ll leave it alone. Perhaps I’ll just look at tweaking the hat notes and dab entries then. Vadmium (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

About Vandalism[edit]

I consider vandalism the removal of content without a single explanation. At least Looie496 is now giving a reason, the fact that the TV transmission removed is in french. I suppose you don't disagree with the main merit of question, hunger as a weapon, and the importance of references to that by internal or external links. Thank you Marasmus (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So, hunger is primarily social, economical and political issue that exists only in United States?[edit]

Cause that is what the current article is telling me.
There is almost no mention of physical, physiological, psychological or any other REAL AND CONSTANT aspects of hunger in humans or animals.
Wonderful! But there are stats on "malnourished people in the developing world". Jolly good!
Let me guess. There was a lot more text on hunger here before, but it was deleted due to being original research?--89.146.133.75 (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That information is in hunger (motivational state). A couple of years ago this article was about hunger as a motivational state and hunger in the sense of malnutrition was redirected to malnutrition, but I found that it was a constant struggle to keep people from adding information about malnutrition to the article, and they would get very angry when the information was removed, so eventually I got tired of fighting and split the article as it currently is. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

changes made 04 Dec 2012[edit]

Great to see the article being updated with the 2012 FAO report. However Im likely to reverse some of the changes made earlier today.

  • For example, it's maybe over complex for the lede to incldue the alternative definition of hunger about it possibly being caused from the body not being able to absorb nutrition. And anyway thats part of the medical definition, it's not what politicians and relief workers generally have in mind when they talk about the problem of global hunger.
  • Just because FAO are saying the Hunger MDG is still achieveable, that doesnt mean we have to copy that in the lede. (Short of divine internvention, it's not likely to happen). In this sort of article it's probably better not to pick out individual sources for the lede, rather it should summarise what all the sources in the body of the article say.
  • Not sure why the fact that hunger has returned to the advanced economies has been removed from the lede either? Anyhow, I'll leave the article for a few days incase others have further changes to make, just indicating that some of them may be reversed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


RESPONSE BY Tpafla82 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC): Great to see that my adjustments sparked some interest. These are my first steps, but I think there are some opportunities to make the article stronger. On your specific points:

  • In my perception most relief workers are very well aware of the absorption/disease component. Please see here: http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/training/2.5/4.html. In fact, not few agencies will argue that hunger mostly is a health/absorption problem, and not food availability related. Whether this is too complex for the ledge may be true though, I cannot judge that yet
  • I would not say that it requires something of the magnitude of divine intervention (judging from the progress already made). Maybe the graph (www.fao.org/hunger/en/) here can help, and knowing that the recent increase is seen by some as a result of the food price hike. Nevertheless, happy to be more cautious on the wording.
  • I removed returning hunger to advanced economies because I simply have not heard real numbers on this, and the article also does not state a source. My assumption was that the statement stems from the same source that cites 1 billion hungry people, which we know is not applicable anymore (since the FAO revision of past hunger statistics). What we do know is that hunger is declining globally (thank god). Tpafla82 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for backing up your views with good sources. Im going to reply at length as its very rare I get the chance to talk to anyone with a good understanding of global dev on wikipedia. And also as you're new here, this may help you better understand our editing norms. No need for you to carry on this conversation if you don't want to. Often editors don't resort to the talk page so early. If you're not happy with any of my changes to the article you could just go straight to re - editing it. (Only if we were having a heated dispute would it be best to get concensus here on the talk page first)
Reading the excellent 2012 FAO report you added and the reaction it generated from independent authorities, you're without doubt correct that the article was unduly pessimistic before your update. ( I mention the reaction from others as I was initially skeptical about the FAO's claim as it conflicted with multiple other sources. Many UN agencies are under severe budgetary pressure and their analysts will sometimes overstate progress as funders will withdraw cash flows if they dont continually see good results in the reports)
You're correct that relief workers are generally well aware of Malabsorption, especially if they're affiliated with the UN. A pesky issue from an academic point of view is that some aid agencies dont draw a clear distinction between hunger (aka under-nourishment or lack of raw calories) and malnutrition (as in missing essential minerals, vitamins and other nutrients). Since at least the early 20th century, there's been a growing trend for aid agencies to deal with the two in parallel, and especially since the UN's SUN programme was launched in 2009. Malabsorption is something thats highly relevant to malnutrition, but not really to hunger as such. There are a few extreme forms of Malabsorption that prevent not just the uptake of nutrients, but of raw caloires. E.g. Celiac disease. But this is even less problem in the developing world where staples are often rice or cassava rather than the West where we eat a lot of the wheat that can set off Celiac's. From the angle of judging the complexity of the lede, a good guideline for you to read if you plan to become a regular editor is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.
Not sure what you have in mind for real number concerning the advanced economies. Their governments dont always monitor hunger in their own populations as until very recently their domestic hunger problems were considered solved. (E.g. search this source for "there is currently no government monitoring of food poverty in the UK." Even when the govs are monitoring hunger or nutrition, the advanced economies dont report the data back to the WB, so the data isnt centrally collected for the UN. (Admitedly my knowledge of the mechanics here might be a few years out of date). However, a figure that comes up again and again for the advanced economies is that about 10% of their populations suffer from food insecurity. (I've added dozens of sources about this to our Food bank article if you're interested). Hapilly, in most advanced economies it seems to be less than 0.3% of the population that are so hungry they need to depend on food banks. There's about a dozen sources already in the article that discuss the return of hunger in the advanced economies. They're especially to be found in the Efforts since the global 2008 crisis section. As a new editor you're probably not aware, but the lede doesnt need to have sources when its summing up existing sources from the body. The single best one for talking about hunger in the whole of the global north isthis one. (You need to click the sublinks to get the whole picture, of particular interest is that statement by good Professor Sabine Pfeiffer that there's been explosive growth of food banks even in Germany, which is a country among the least affected by the crisis.)
This is in no way a criticism, but if you were an experienced editor it might have been bad form to make substantial changes to the lede without reading the whole body and scanning the sources. As you;re a new editor, you did the right thing by boldly editing. Sorry to go on for so long; Im excited to see a promising new editor working in this topic class. I'll make some changes in line with what I've said above. Hope we see more of you! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow - I am very impressed! I will try to invest a lot more time into this in the nearer future (even though there are many interesting topics to expand, and this one is already covered well). For now I want to limit my feedback to one specific point in the ledge. The claim that 1 child dies from hunger every 6 seconds is a pretty old one, and I believe not true anymore (at least according to latest reports). The Lancet 2008 series is talking about 3.5M deaths from hunger, the FAO 2012 about 2.5M deaths. Also, I guess there is some caution needed here, as starvation is very rare, and the cause of death - I understand - is rather a combination of hunger-induced weak immune system and another disease (diarrhea, malaria, etc.) on top. Hence probably also the wording in FAO 2012 (and others) that "childhood malnutrition is A cause of death for than 2.5M children every year"). I changed the ledge correspondingly. One last thing on the WFP hunger stats - I heard that they will be updated soon :-) Tpafla82 (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and good edit. There's some recent reliable sources (books from university presses) that give the figure as high as 1 per 3 seconds. But you're right the 2012 FAO report is probably the best one for us to reflect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you forward me the titles of the sources you mention? Would be interested to have a look. Tpafla82 (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
An example source already referenced in the article is Hunger: The Bilogy and Politics of Starvation (2010), which says: "according to the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), a child dies every three seconds "of hunger" " That book is published by Dartmouth College, which is in fact an Ivy League University. You could find many other titles by searching google books for "a child dies every 3 seconds of hunger". Anyhow, your instincts or contacts seem to have already led you to the very best source for this, so good show! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You may like this just as much as I do: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2961766-8/fulltext. Besides,... have a look what they say about mortality from child underweight ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpafla82 (talkcontribs) 22:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, good to read this confirmation of long term progress. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to fix the redirects and put this article right[edit]

I really think that "Hunger" should be the motivational state. I looked up Hunger on wikipedia to find out what causes it, blah blah blah and got a load of information about malnutrition and starving people, which I really couldn't care less about right now. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, should really title its articles properly. I propose this article should be only about the motivational state, with a disambig subtitle guiding those looking for famine or malnutrition to the correct page. If that doesn't help then just lock edits on the page. I doubt most people would think "I want to know about famine, better hit wikipedia for 'hunger'".

At the very least a search for hunger should direct to a page with links to hunger (motivational state), hunger among humans, and possibly a third page if neccessary. Misteranderson91 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think our title is already correct. As an encyclopedia, our articles are to a degree a reflection of the reliable published sources. Looking at sources with a primary topic of hunger, those who treat hunger as a political and social problem seem to outnumber those that treat hunger as a motivational states by more than 100:1. Im not sure why you made the comment about famine, thats only a small part of the article. Severe hunger affects millions of people even in places like the United States, where they have a super abundance of food availability. If you watch the recent film A Place at the Table, it shows even cops having to use food banks, as otherwise they go hungry 'cos their monthly pay only leaves them enough for 2 weeks food. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)